Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

State revisionism and ontological (in)security in international politics: the complicated case of Iran and its nuclear behavior

  • Forum
  • Published:
Journal of International Relations and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite continuing to be a strong tendency in international relations today, “state revisionism” has been theoretically and empirically understudied. This article attempts to fill the lacuna by further conceptualizing revisionism and subsequently investigating its relationship with ontological (in)security through studying the ways in which revisionist states envision their identities and interests and take measures to secure them. It argues that revisionists define their relationship with outside “Others” primarily in terms of dissatisfaction and self-extending change and thus find themselves operating within an enmity-centric “Hobbesian culture of anarchy,” which may ironically serve as a source of ontological security due to the consequent “singularity” status it confers upon them. By opposing the prevailing status quo, however, revisionists are likely to subject themselves to a “geopolitics of exclusion,” which in turn helps render them more prone to feelings of ontological insecurity. To instantiate the theory, I focus on Iran and its nuclear behavior, contending that it represents a case of “thin revisionism” aimed at attaining ontological security, but which also entails undesirable consequences that generate ontological insecurity. The case furthermore reveals the limits of seeking ontological security, suggesting that the degree of revisionism is usually checked by existential fears of threat to survival.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The ethnographic fieldwork and small-scale public opinion appraisals were conducted in a number of big Iranian cities including Tehran, Tabriz, and Rasht between December 2013 and January 2014. During the two-month work, I personally interviewed or otherwise questioned a total of 75 male and female respondents (20 in Rasht, 20 in Tabriz, and 35 in Tehran).

  2. It is noteworthy that the developments surrounding the historic Iran nuclear accord in 2015, which I have reflected in the paper during the revision process, have only served to confirm the findings and conclusions I had arrived at in the original manuscript.

References

  • Abrahamian, E. 1993. Khomeinism: essays on the Islamic Republic. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, E., and M. Barnett. 1998. Security communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Amsden, A.A. 2001. The rise of “the rest”: challenges to the West from late-industrializing economies. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Behravesh, M. 2011. A crisis of confidence revisited: Iran-west tensions and mutual demonization. Asian Politics & Policy 3 (3): 327–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behravesh, M. 2013. Why Israel is obsessed with an Iranian bomb. In Foreign policy in focus. http://fpif.org/why-israel-is-obsessed-with-an-iranian-bomb/. Accessed 14 Aug 2013.

  • Behravesh, M. 2014. The nuclear implications of Iran-Pakistan tensions. The Diplomat. http://thediplomat.com/2014/11/the-nuclear-implications-of-iran-pakistan-tensions/. Accessed 18 Nov 2014.

  • BBC Persian. 2015. Ayatollah khamenei: mikhahand sirat-e jomhouri-e eslami ra avaz konand [Ayatollah Khamenei: they want to change the character of the Islamic Republic]. http://www.bbc.com/persian/iran/2015/10/151012_iran_khamenei_war_warning. Accessed 30 Oct 2015.

  • Buzan, B. 1983. People, states, and fear: the national security problem in international relations. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun, C. (ed.). 1994. Social theory and the politics of identity. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. 2010. The power of identity. In The information age: economy, society and culture, (2nd edn, vol. 2). Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Chomsky, N. 2000. Rogue States: the rule of force in world affairs. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T.J. 2001a. China. In Strategic Asia: power and purpose, 2001–2002, ed. R.J. Ellings and A.L. Friedberg, 39–47. Seattle, WA: National Bureau of Asian Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T.J. 2001b. Posing problems without catching up: China’s rise and challenges for U.S. security policy. International Security 25 (4): 5–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coker, C. 2009. Rebooting the West: The US, Europe and the future of the western alliance (White Hall Paper 72). London: Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, J. 1999. What makes a concept good? A criterial framework for understanding concept formation in the social sciences. Polity 31 (3): 357–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gooya Newsletter. 2015. Matn-e kamel-e sokhanan-e sansour shodeh-ye Araghchi dar jam’-e Modiran-e seda va sima [The full text of Araghchi’s censored remarks in the gathering of IRIB directors]. http://news.gooya.com/politics/archives/2015/08/200529.php. Accessed 14 Sept 2015.

  • Hammack, P.L., and A. Pilecki. 2012. Narrative as a root metaphor for political psychology. Political Psychology 33 (1): 75–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, S. 2013. The nuclear handshake: Is the Pakistan-Saudi weapons program for real? In Foreign Policy. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/11/08/the_nuclear_handshake_saudi_arabia_pakistan.

  • Holsti, K.J. 1970. National role conceptions in the study of foreign policy. International Studies Quarterly 14 (3): 233–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornsey, M. 2008. Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: a historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2 (1): 204–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosseini-Nik, S.A. 1385/2006. Qanoun-e asasi-e jomhouri-e eslami-e Iran [The constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran]. Tehran: Majd.

  • Huddy, L. 2013. From group identity to political cohesion and commitment. In The Oxford handbook of political psychology, 2nd ed, ed. L. Huddy, D.O. Sears, and J.S. Levy, 737–773. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Huiyun, F. 2009. Is China a revisionist power? The Chinese Journal of International Politics 2 (3): 313–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huysmans, J. 1998. Security! What do you mean? From concept to thick signifier. European Journal of International Relations 4 (2): 226–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hymans, J.E.C. 2006. The psychology of nuclear proliferation: identity, emotions, and foreign policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • IAEA. 2015a. World distribution of uranium deposits: number of uranium deposits. https://infcis.iaea.org/UDEPO/UDEPOMain.asp?Order=1&RPage=1&Page=1&RightP=Summary. Accessed 14 Oct 2015.

  • IAEA. 2015b. Final assessment on past and present outstanding issues regarding Iran’s nuclear programme. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov-2015-68.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec 2015.

  • Izadi, B. 1380/2001. Daramad-i bar siasat-e khareji-e jomhouri-e eslami-e Iran [An introduction to the Islamic republic of Iran’s foreign policy] (2nd edn). Qom: Boustan-e Ketab-e Qom.

  • Jafarzadeh, A. 2007. The Iran threat: President Ahmadinejad and the coming nuclear crisis. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Javadi-Amoli, A. 1375/1996. Falsafeh-ye hoquq-e bashar [The philosophy of human rights]. Qom: Asra Publications.

  • Johnston, A.I. 2003. Is China a status quo power? International Security 27 (4): 5–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). 2015. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245317.pdf, http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/docs/iran_agreement/iran_joint-comprehensive-plan-of-action_en.pdf. Accessed 15 Oct 2015.

  • Jones, C.W. 2014. Exploring the microfoundations of international community: toward a theory of enlightened nationalism. International Studies Quarterly 58 (4): 682–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juneau, T. 2014. Iran under Rouhani: still alone in the world. Middle East Policy 21 (4): 92–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kastner, S.L., and P.C. Saunders. 2011. Is China a status quo or revisionist state? Leadership travel as an empirical indicator of foreign policy priorities. International Studies Quarterly 56 (1): 163–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khamenei, A. 2010. Bayanat dar didar-e dastandarkaran-e sakht-e navshekan-e Jamaran [remarks to the staff involved in building Jamaran naval destroyer]. http://www.leader.ir/langs/fa/index.php?p=bayanat&id=6469. Accessed 21 Feb 2010.

  • Khamenei, A. 2015. Didar-e rais va modiran-e sazman-e seda va sima ba rahbar-e enghelab [The meeting of the IRIB head and directors with the leader of the revolution]. KHAMENEI.IR. http://farsi.khamenei.ir/news-content?id=31050. Accessed 25 Oct 2015.

  • Kinnvall, C. 2004. Globalization and religious nationalism: self, identity and the search for ontological security. Political Psychology 25 (5): 741–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kupchan, C.A. 2007. After Pax Americana: Benign power, regional integration, and the sources of a stable multipolarity. In international security: debating security and strategy and the impact of 9–11, vol. IV, ed. B. Buzan and L. Hansen, 67–101. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littman, D.G. 2003. Human rights and human wrongs. National Review. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/205577/human-rights-and-human-wrongs-david-g-littman. Accessed 15 Oct 2015.

  • Lupovici, A. 2012. Ontological dissonance, clashing identities, and Israel’s unilateral steps towards the palestinians. Review of International Studies 38 (4): 809–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manners, I. 2002. European [security] union: from existential threat to ontological security. IIS Working Papers 05. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Peace Research Institute.

  • Mazarr, M.J. 2014. The age of grievance: how to play resentment politics. Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141617/michael-j-mazarr/the-age-of-grievance. Accessed 15 Jul 2014.

  • McSweeney, B. 1999. Security, Identity and interests: a sociology of international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mead, W.R. 2014. The return of geopolitics: the revenge of the revisionist powers. Foreign Affairs. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141211/walter-russell-mead/the-return-of-geopolitics. Accessed 12 Oct 2015.

  • Mercer, J. 2014. Feeling like a state: social emotion and identity. International Theory 6 (3): 515–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirbagheri, F. 2007. Narrowing the gap or camouflaging the divide: an analysis of Mohammad Khatami’s ‘dialogue of civilisations’. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 34 (3): 305–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitzen, J. 2006. Ontological security in world politics: state identity and the security dilemma. European Journal of International Relations 12 (3): 341–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitzen, J. 2015. All security is ontological. Unpublished paper.

  • Moshirzadeh, H. 2007. Discursive foundations of Iran’s nuclear policy. Security Dialogue 38 (4): 521–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mousavian, S.H. 2013. Globalising Iran’s fatwa against nuclear weapons. Survival 55 (2): 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mozaffari, A. 2014. Forming national identity in Iran: the idea of homeland derived from ancient Persian and Islamic imaginations of place. London: I. B. Tauris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naji, K. 2008. Ahmadinejad: the secret history of Iran’s radical leader. London: I. B. Tauris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, T.V. 2014. The warrior state: Pakistan in the contemporary world. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petito, F. 2007. The global political discourse of dialogue among civilizations: Mohammad Khatami and Václav Havel. Global Change, Peace & Security 19 (2): 103–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajaee, F. 2007. Islamism and modernism: the changing discourse in Iran. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reicher, S. 2004. The context of social identity: domination, resistance, and change. Political Psychology 25 (6): 921–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringmar, E. 1996. On the ontological status of the state. European Journal of International Relations 2 (4): 439–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringmar, E. 2014. The search for dialogue as a hindrance to understanding: practices as inter-paradigmatic research program. International Theory 6 (1): 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouhani, H. 1391/2012. Amniyat-e melli va diplomasi-ye haste-i [National security and nuclear diplomacy]. 4th edition. Tehran: State Expediency Discernment Council, Center for Strategic Research.

  • Rouhani, H. 2013. Why Iran seeks constrictive engagement. Washington Post. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-19/opinions/42214900_1_violence-world-leaders-hassan-rouhani. Accessed 12 Oct 2013.

  • Saikal, A. 2009. The roots of Iran’s election crisis. Survival 51 (5): 91–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samore, G., et al. 2015. The Iran nuclear deal: a definitive guide. Cambridge, MA: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shambaugh, D. 1999/2000. China’s military views the world: ambivalent security. International Security, 24(3): 52–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shambaugh, D. 2000. Sino-American strategic relations: from partners to competitors. Survival 42 (1): 97–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shambaugh, D. 2001. China or America: which is the revisionist power? Survival 43 (3): 25–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, B.J. 2008. Ontological security in international relations: self-identity and the IR state. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • The White House. 2015. The Iran nuclear deal: what you need to know about the JCPOA. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/jcpoa_what_you_need_to_know.pdf. Accessed 26 Sept 2015.

  • Urban, M. 2013. Saudi nuclear weapons “on order” from Pakistan. British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846.

  • Vaez, A., and K. Sadjadpour. 2013. Iran’s nuclear odyssey: costs and risks. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. 1999. Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. 2004. The state as person in international theory. Review of International Studies 30: 289–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Younis, M. 2013. Iranians feel bite of sanctions, blame U.S., not own leaders. Gallup World./ http://www.gallup.com/poll/160358/iranians-feel-bite-sanctions-blame-not-own-leaders.aspx. Accessed 8 Feb 2013.

  • Zakaria, F. 2008. The post-American world. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The author acknowledges the financial assistance of the foundation Stiftelsen Lars Hiertas Minne in Stockholm, Sweden, which was used in course of producing this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Center for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES), Lund University, 223 50, Lund, Sweden

    Maysam Behravesh

Authors
  1. Maysam Behravesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maysam Behravesh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Behravesh, M. State revisionism and ontological (in)security in international politics: the complicated case of Iran and its nuclear behavior. J Int Relat Dev 21, 836–857 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-018-0149-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-018-0149-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation